About your Search

20130318
20130326
STATION
CSPAN 3
CNNW 2
CSPAN2 2
KCSM (PBS) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 15
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
an hour. [applause] >> now, our love whered president finish beloved president ronald reagan passed away almost ten years ago. but as many in this audience know, it seems nearly impossible to follow political news without hearing some reference to our 40th president. his memory, his name and, fortunately, his legacy seem to be ubiquitous as our country grapples with the challenges of our time. for many years, probably starting with the day after president reagan left office in 1989, there's been a famous question often asked when this is a particularly vexing problem facing our country. you've likely heard it before. we, the questioners often ask, well, what would reagan do? it's a good question to ask, because while times and technology and many faces have changed since president reagan was in office, some important fundamentals, those that speak to who we are as americans, have not. i believe that our guest today, governor jeb bush, understands this. and it's one of the reasons that after having left office just about six years ago he remains an extremely important national voice in th
insisted of about 125 people. it has grown over the years and became a favorite stop of ronald reagan, first as a candidate, and then as president. what is next? guest: there is a divide. the conservative movement has become much bigger than it was in the 1970's. the republican party. the straw poll results are popularity contests, to be sure, but they are also a window into , and the people, the 3000 that voted in the straw poll, many of them would have supported ron paul in the past. another one-quarter are more traditional conservatives. about one-tenth or more are social conservatives. that is their primary issue. the social conservatives were those who supported rick santorum, so you have these wings of the party, and on these issues, they all agree, but on some issues, especially the social ones, there is going to be conflicts, especially over the next few years, as the party tries to determine the next election. coveringmes hohmann, the cpac conference, up early. he has been getting a lot of attention in political circles, and his work is available on- line at politico dot com.
of thing. >> ronald reagan carried pennsylvania, new jersey, california, massachusetts, ohio, florida, michigan -- all of the big states. he won 59% of the white vote. mr. romney won 59% of the white vote and he did not carry any of those states. i commend the republicans for going through this exercise. it is painful. it opens them up to scrutiny, to cheap shots, but they are doing something that most parties loss -- most parties gloss over. most parties blame the defeat on their own candidate. john mccain was the grumpy old man candidate -- that is why he lost. al gore was a stiff. that is why the democrats lost. it is an easy explanation. they are confronting something very real. they deserve great credit. it is difficult and painful. most technological advances do not come out of the party apparatus. ey come out as howard dean had social networking, and barack obama took that to different levels in 2012. >> rand paul had a speech on immigration that even marco rubio praised. >> rand paul is, to me, representing what republicans ought to be doing, and not what priebus is talking ab
, and it's got to go. [cheers and applause] ronald reagan omelet me down a couple -- only let me down a couple of times in eight years. one of those was 1986, and i still had the dent after i heard on the news he had signed the amnesty act of 1986. but it was on the promise that there would be law enforcement, and we would restore the rule of law and a million people would be legalized. but then from there on forward the law would be enforced. well, i made sure i kept my records right waiting for the ins to show up at my office, but i never saw them. neither did thousands of businesses. but the enforcement in re began era was greater than the enforcement in any succeeding administration, and now the law is so eroded, i sat in a hearing just a couple of days ago and heard la raza say, well, we want to provide comprehensive immigration reform, and after we restore the rule of law -- la raza's telling us they're restoring the rule of law by waiving it? they've eroded the rule of law. and republicans seem to forget of the 11 or 12 million that they say are here -- and i think it's 20 -- t
movement to get elected and then feign shock when conservatives call them out for bad policy. ronald reagan cemented our values with his analogy -- that conservativism stands for free enterprise, strong national defense, and pro-family social policies. if you take one leg away from the stool, the stool crumbles. if we sell out our principles then the conservative movementthose in the establishment who claim they know how to win are simply living a lie. just look at the past two presidential campaigns. how did that work out for the establishment? only in 2010, when our conservative grassroots were fully mobilized, hand in hand with the tea party did we prevail. last month the battle lines were drawn when karl rove and company announced to "the new york times," of all places, they were forming the conservative victory project. the conservative victory project is nothing more than an attempt by the establishment to control the conservative movement. calling it the conservative victory project is like mitt romney saying he was a severe conservative. tol rove claims he wants win. why does he thi
. >> let me quote dick cheney, who said ronald reagan taught us that deficits do not matter. dick cheney was wrong. he was wrong then and now. of course deficits matter, but any one of you who supported the bush plans has no right to speak. i helped bill clinton balance the budget and build a surplus. why? because we had good economic times. in good economic times, you pay down the deficit, but reagan and bush did not, and in bad you have to stimulate in the near term, as thank god president obama is doing. we democrats will balance the budget once again. >> paul, which is more important to america's pursuit of happiness -- which is more dangerous, excuse me, than a 357 magnum -- >> in my home you would find 17 guns and no cans of soda pop. i have the right wing position on the giant drink soda thing. i do not like the idea, and i think bloomberg is a fine man, but i do not like government telling us what size to buy today. this one, i am with tucker and most of you. i have the right wing position on gun safety. i have the same position as ronald reagan, who was for a waiting period befo
. and that's not unprecedented. ronald reagan never went two terms, george w. bush took the tail end of his second term. but there has been a difficult relationship with netanyahu. and he goes at a time when the whole region is in turmoil. >> you're right, they're lowering, the white house is lowering expectations, the trip is largely to offset the 2009 trip that president obama took to cairo. where he made a speech to cairo and then did not go to israel, went on to buchenwald, talked about the holocaust, but missed the beginnings of israel. this is a chance to kind of, i don't want to say make it right. but to reach out to israelis in a way he hasn't before. he's not speaking at the knesset. he's speaking to young israelis at a convention center, he's doing things differently at this time. >> and what's the significance of him going to the weitzman statue. this was the leader of zionism. and that's anathema to many people in the arab world, but a way of saying i stand with israel. to israel it's important because it predates the holocaust. by centuries. millennium, it says that israelis ha
covering since ronald reagan. and the first interview was al-arabi al-arabiya. and in cairo talked about a new beginning between the united states and muslim world. i think we've seen pan out a muslim brotherhood government in control and we misread the arab spring and the muslim brotherhood said they wouldn't run someone for president and they did. we've seen hamas stronger as well as hezbollah, islamic jihad. and we've seen incredibly unstable situation in syria. when i was there on a congressional visit and we sat down with president netanyahu, one thing he asked, he was concerned about iran and the dominance and occurred and we have the iranian guard in syria. and their march toward having the nuclear device so they can have dominance. >> sean: that's all true and it's gotten worse, leslie, after the suck up to the world apology tour. and king be abdullah, jordan, says it's naive, that the muslim brotherhood are wolves in sheep's clothing, risky for him. and this president is giving 1.5 billion dollars, and f-16 jets and tanks it a guy that views the israelis as the descendents of ap
. when ronald reagan did it we had 7% growth in one year and that is the bold leadership we need but it's not a new principle. we don't have to reinvent ourselves in that way but we have to stand on principle and unless you stand for something people are not motivated to vote for you. >> chris: let's talk about what you stand about, immigration. you came out with your ideas for a comprehensive plan this week and since then you are taking fire from both the right and the left. you call your plan for creating a legal status. not citizenship, but a legal status, for the 11 million folks who are already here, illegal immigrants who are here but taking fire from the right because you oppose the e-verify system which would make it easier for employers to check whether their workers are in fact legal or illegal. why would you oppose that? >> that's not the main part of my plan. the main part is trust but verify, we have to have border security and conservatives always wanted border security before we had immigration reform and the amendment i'll add to the bipartisan plan will ensure that ther
for ronald reagan and for george h.w. bush. so he's really -- he started out as a political consultant. he's certainly a republican. he's certainly a conservative. that's reflected in fox news. i did a quiz with him that a professor at ucla had cooked up to measure conservativism versus liberalism. and he took it and so did i, by the way. and it turns out that he is more conservative than the network. and he agreed that that's probably true. >> so he's obviously very conservative in that position that he has, it filters down, i assume, on the network. i want to play a clip. this is sarah palin. she used to be a fox news contributor until the last election. this is what she said at the conservative political action conference that took place in washington this past weekend. >> if these experts who keep losing elections, yet keep getting rehired, raking in millions, if they feel that strongly about who gets to run in the party, then show should buck up or stay in the truck. buck up and run. the architect can head on back to -- [ cheers ] -- they can head on back to the great lone star state
, appointed by ronald reagan in 1987, but he's the author of the court's two most important gay rights decision. lawrence v. texas, which said that states could no longer ban consensual sodomy among consenting adults and the romer case from colorado. so he is certainly the most likely of the five republicans on the court to join the four democrats, at least on the defense of marriage act case, if not also on the proposition 8 case. there are two same-sex marriage cases to be argued next week. >> so, jimmy, if things don't go your way, if the justices like, you know, i'll just shorthand it, rule against same-sex marriage, rule out its constitutionality, what will you do? >> well, this issue is being talked about in every state. and the tenth amendment leaves marriage and family law to the states. and i think that there will be a state-by-state recognition that gay people should have the opportunity and the ability to get married and that will take just a longer conversation that we're having as a nation. and that's what we'll do. we'll continue to take it state by state and show that ma
of -- or a play on words of what ronald reagan said, we can't even trust yet much less verify. but we do have to test the proposition that this can be resolved diplomatically and if it can't, then i've repeat today bb what i've said publicly, we'll leave all options on the table
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)